(first posted 7/23/2012) I have always been fascinated by the Chevrolet-Ford rivalry. As Henry Ford’s bare-bones Model T hit its stride, the Ford Motor Company had a kind of market dominance that we will never see again. But once General Motors’ Chevrolet Division took an inexpensive car and made it nice, the race was on. By 1927-28, Chevrolet’s formula of offering a nicer vehicle for slightly more money proved to be a winner; by 1931, Chevrolet had overtaken Ford for good, with a display of sales dominance that would run largely uninterrupted for over fifty years. During the glory years, Chevrolet’s stock in trade was high style for a low price. Once the V8 hit Chevy showrooms in 1955, Chevy’s place atop the automotive pecking order was, with rare exceptions, solidified– except, that is, in one segment: station wagons.

In the 1950s, Ford advertised itself as “America’s Wagon Master”, and for good reason. With a few exceptions (particularly in the early 1960s), Chevrolet never seemed able to put away Ford wagons as they had done elsewhere in the model lineup. As the 1960s unfolded, this situation would become more and more lopsided–even when it came to sales materials. This Chevrolet brochure shows a family walking away from a Chevy wagon. The Ford family seems to be having so much more fun.

For whatever reason, Chevrolet started losing ground in wagons with the 1965 restyle. But the boys at Chevy were determined not to give up, and for 1966 brought forth a proper opponent for Ford’s wood-paneled Country Squire–the Caprice Estate. Unfortunately for Chevrolet, Ford outsold them by about 15,000 wagons. In 1967, the margin would open up to about 25,000 units and would only grow wider from there. So just what about this wagon is so unattractive? Or put another way, in a world where people were disposed to buy more Chevys than Fords, why was this wagon the bridesmaid and not the bride? Good question.

Was it looks? Looks are always subjective, but the ’67 Chevy was a very attractive car (as were all big Chevys of that period). But as proven by Chrysler’s minivan sales a generation later, maybe wagon buyers really are practical folks who just want a big box.

Was it performance? This particular wagon had at long last remedied Chevrolet’s main weakness, the old two-speed Powerglide transmission. The PG (History here) was indisputably a tough old unit, and Chevy’s high-revving small block certainly disguised the old PG’s lack of ratios. But the three-speed Turbo Hydramatic was finally (though optionally) on the job. The new tranny showed up behind the big block engines in 1966, but eventually was offered with the midrange 327 in 1967. At last, the Chevy wagon buyer had an answer to Ford’s dull-but-torquey FE engines and Cruise-O-Matic trannys that were perfect for the stuff that wagons do. The tightwads who insisted on the old 283 (or the six) would continue to experience powertrain deja vu with the same pieces they had known and loved in their 1963 (or ’60 or ’57) Chevys.

Certainly it wasn’t the interior appointments: The Caprice Estate in particular was a very nice car inside. Although this one has certainly seen (more than?) its share of wear and tear, you can see that this would have been a very nice place to endure the endless queries of “Are we there yet?” that surely dogged most of the drivers of these big wagons–and especially so when they were equipped with factory air…ahhhhhhh, a luxury I could only dream about while stuck to the blistering black vinyl seats of Dad’s Squire. Of course, the Country Squire offered a very nice interior as well. One quibble with the Chevy – if you are designing a dashboard with three greeeeeat big gauge pods, do you really waste the entirety of one of them on the world’s biggest gas gauge? All the better to actually watch it moving towards the ‘E’.

One thing this Caprice Estate did not have was Ford’s Magic Doorgate. The Ford two-way door gate (which evolved into a three-way door gate that opened as a door whether the window was up or down) might have been the canary in the coal mine that signalled the end of Chevy’s dominance over Ford. This Caprice Estate was, essentially, the same station wagon that Chevrolet had built in 1964 or 1959 or 1955. Although Chevrolet continued to produce and sell a stylish and throughly competent car, Ford was taking the same basic car and raising the stakes with some innovation. Chevy reacted with a doorgate of its own in 1969-70. Then, just after getting this game-changing feature, along came the clamshell tailgate on the 1971-76 GM wagons which had an unintended effect of actively repelling customers towards Ford.

As for this ad, they must have taken this picture in Lake Wobegon, where all of the Catholics buy their cars at Krebsbach Chevrolet and the Lutherans drive Fords from Bunsen Motors. I always wondered what Carl Krebsbach looked like. These children certainly look above average.

This decrepit Caprice wagon has been having the last laugh over Country Squires in much of the country. Its frame has avoided rusting to the point of breaking in two despite all the years of apparent abuse. Chevy wagons of this vintage generally enjoy the kind of long, long life evidenced by this particular example. I wonder what happened to the wood on the sides. Vinyl-eating termites perhaps? Actually, the ’67 Chevy wagon looks better to me without the wood. I wonder why I prefer my Fords with but my Chebys without?

Another thing that Ford could not boast of in 1967 was a cool gold- vinyl interior. The Chevy also gave its buyers a proper telescoping steering column instead of a big foam mushroom mounted in the steering wheel. And is there any more prototypical color combo for a late-1960s big American car than gold inside and out? Except maybe for avacado green, I mean. I recall reading once that gold cars finally outsold white ones in 1970; at any rate, the color’s popularity was already building a head of steam in 1967.

This is one car I somehow never rode in. A high school friend had a ’68 Fury wagon, and I have previously written about my father’s ’66 Country Squire. The closest I can get to one of these is that my little sister had a friend whose family had a strippo ’67 Biscayne wagon with a three-speed. Also, I once test drove a ’67 Impala hardtop for a friend. Otherwise, the rest of my ’67 Chevy experience came from the outside. Still, there were worse cars to look at a lot, which I certainly did; once upon a time, these were everywhere. However, I recall that there always seemed to be a lot more Impalas than Caprices around.

If we all were permitted to step through a wormhole and onto a dealer lot packed with new 1967 Chevrolets, it would be fun to watch the stampede to claim a Corvette, Camaro, Malibu SS, or even a Custom Deluxe C10 pickup. There would even be at least one guy looking over a new Corvair (can anybody name him?) As for me, I would be standing in complete solitude while looking over a wagon just about like this one. Is this what I would pick to drive back home? That depends. Are we allowed to go to the Ford dealer next door? No? Then I’ll take one of these – perhaps the gold one with the 396 and air.

91 Comments

I’ve always had the feeling that station wagon buyers, like pickup truck buyers, were very brand loyal. Once you got started with that first (fill in the blank) station wagon, you stayed with it. There was definitely some tech advantage for the Ford (two way tailgate, plus two points; GM’s answer with the clamshell, minus three points). I can still remember mom’s ’66 and ’70 Caprice wagons. The second was especially held on to for a long time in our family, only being replaced by a ’78 Buick LeSabre diesel wagon.

The 2 way tailgate was cool because of the size of the thing. The ability to swing out go you a lot closer to your stuff.

GMs was more of “Look at us, we are so cool”. Motors, wires, weight. And slower to open and close. Just to accomplish the same thing. I do remember seeing more than one wagon with the clam shell not fully closed driving down the road. GMs idea was just one more thing that could break.

Always wondered how they worked if you had to open the back after a ice/snow storm. Did the glass and bottom clam have to be perfectly clean to keep from binding?

Always wondered how they worked if you had to open the back after a ice/snow storm. Did the glass and bottom clam have to be perfectly clean to keep from binding?

Growing up in South Louisiana, it was never cold enough for me to see that happen to a clamshell. But now that I’ve lived for many years where it snows, I can only imagine the hassle of the key switch that was mounted atop the right rear fender. Given the angle and location, I bet those things froze solid long before the door locks did, forcing the owner to use the switch mounted on the dash.

I’ve only seen one review of the manual version of the clamshell, in an article found in Google’s library of old Popular Science magazines. From what I could see, it appeared that the “armstrong version” used a conventional latch and a torsion bar or counterweight of some sort. You have to wonder if it wasn’t faster and simpler to operate than the electric version, although I have no idea how the window lowered.

I used one of the manual clamshells once. When you would turn the key, it would release a latch. Spring tension would move the window up a couple of inches and the tailgate down a couple of inches. Then you would shove the window up into the roof and the gate down into the floor, where both of them would latch into place. To close, you turned the key again to release them, then you pull the gate up and pull the window down. Suddenly its 1960! Only with a lot more complexity. But the manual one could be a lot faster than the power version that most of them were.

CARMINE

Posted July 23, 2012 at 6:28 AM

I thought the window was power regardless of the manual or power tailgate. I have never had a manual clamshell, though I have had 2 power clamshell cars, both have had reliable clamshell doors. We dont get snow down here, but if the rear window is covered in leaves, yes they will end up in the car.

jpcavanaugh

Posted July 23, 2012 at 6:43 AM

My single experience with the manual clamshell was in the mid 70s, so my memory could be getting foggy, but I could swear I remember pushing the springloaded window up into the roof until it clacked. But I could be wrong.
I do remember that closing the manual gate involved some really bad ergonomics. The grabhandle was on the inside, but as the gate raised up, the handle would be too high and too far in to pull it to the top. I think you got it part way up with the grabhandle, then pushed it the rest of the way on the outside of the gate with flat palms, in a way guaranteed to get your hands dirty every time.

Billy Rockfish

Posted July 24, 2012 at 1:30 PM

Our ’71 Olds Custom Cruiser came with the power upper (glass) lower manual. You turned the key (outside) ; the window went up then the lower part (the gate) would drop down a couple of inches. You would push that part manually all the way down. My Dad liked it as you could back up all the way to a door/loading dock, etc. much like a truck sans tailgate. The delta: when going into snow country, all of that snow/ice that would accumulate on the glass would fall into the back (carpeted or third seat up) compartment.

I hardily agree and i think this transferred to the Pick Up craze when wagons went out of vogue. Ford, of course, had the V8 wagons before the Chev. 265 V-8 was introduced in 1955. I would never have wanted a wagon with a 6 banger, and therefore would have stuck with Ford wagons even after 1955.

Being first, in anything, is always best. It is hard to play catch up.

I think you hit the nail on the head here Syke. When I was born in 66 my dad bought a Ford Ranch wagon. He replaced it in 1972 with a Ford Ranch Wagon.
in 1979 my youngest sister was born, forcing us out of the Wagons and into Econoline passenger vans. The Wagon became mine to drive in 1982 when I got my license. Great car except you had to carry spare voltage regulators for it as it seemed to consume them in a regular bases. fortunately they were still separate unit then and it was a quick change as it sat right on the fender. 4 screws, 2 wires, boom. you were back on the road again. I was a popular guy in carload drive in night (one price, as many people as you could haul in the vehical) and since the rear had the trunk rather than the available 3rd seat it worked like a cooler (with pre rusted drain holes)

Not only did Ford wagons outsell Chevy’s; in most of the years in which both makes offered them, the convertibles did, as well.

The fact that this was the case with two of the most expensive bodystyles leads me to wonder if GM’s hierarchy wasn’t partly to blame. You can almost hear the salesman in a multi-line dealership telling the buyer, “Well, if you’re not hell-bent on a wagon (or convertible), for the same money I can put you into this nicer Catalina/Eighty-Eight/LeSabre sedan.” Or perhaps in these bodystyles, the price difference between a Chevy and Pontiac, Olds or Buick wasn’t that great…although, during the late ’60s it seemed that GM was forcing full-size wagon buyers into a Chevy or a Pontiac, as Buick and Olds didn’t offer B-body wagons from ’65 to ’69 (’65 to ’70 for Olds).

At that point I think multi-franchise dealerships were still the exception, rather than the rule. In fact, until around 1956 I think many automakers actually forbade it (except with deliberate captives like the pairing of Plymouth with Dodge and DeSoto before 1960); that changed when the feds started making noises about dealer practices.

The Buick and Olds wagons were kind of a special case. They were based on the A-body, but they were a good deal larger than an A-body sedan. The Buick was actually 1.9 inches longer overall than the Chevrolet wagon, on a 120-inch wheelbase. The big difference was in width: the Chevy’s tread width was about 5 inches wider.

I assume the reason Buick and Oldsmobile took that approach was to keep their prices in the thick of the market. The Vista Cruiser started at $3,135, which was exactly $200 more than Ford Country Sedan and about $100 less than a six-passenger Country Squire. If the VC had been a B-body, it probably would have ended up more like the Chrysler Newport Town & Country, which started at almost $4,300 — a big jump for wagon buyers.

My initial guess was that Buick and Olds got out of the big wagon business because sales were so low. They were — but the mid-sized 1964 replacements ended up being produced in lower numbers. So I suppose you could plausibly argue that they weren’t such a good choice.

However, the flip side is that instead of the cost of producing and marketing a mid-sized and a full-sized set of wagons, Buick and Olds would henceforth only field one set. Better economies of scale. Also better differentiation from Chevy and Pontiac. Not a bad idea for such a low-volume market. That’s why I was disappointed when GM abandoned this approach in the early-70s.

Actually, there was no interchange of the skyroof A body wagons with the standard A body wagons. The skyroof cars were longer.

The Vista Cruiser was popular enough, but the Buick skyroof wagon didn’t sell. That’s why Buick tooled the one-year 1970 B body Estate Wagon. Buick (and Olds) restyled the A body cars for 1970 on the old shells. They had to tool new rear panels for all of their A body wagons. Olds tooled rear panels for both sizes of A body wagon and waited til the new 1971 full size wagons were released. Buick dropped the skyroof and tooled a 1970 B body wagon.

Back in the day, multi-line dealerships were either very rare, or didn’t exist at all. Johnstown had the Pontiac/Cadillac dealership paired, but the other three marques were separate. For that matter, multi dealership chains didn’t really exist either. The outfit my father worked for (Hallman’s Central Chevrolet in Rochester, NY) was a nine dealership chain consisting of Maynard Hallman, his seven sons, and my dad.

And you NEVER had a GM/Ford, GM/Chrysler, GM/AMC, or GM/foreign combination under any conditions. In the fifties, if you owned a GM dealership and bought something else, you divested one or the other. Period.

I just noticed one feature of this generation of Chevy wagon that may have hurt it. There is a pretty severe fastback-like slope to the rear. This would tend to make the rearmost foot or two of loadspace unusable for tall cargo if you plan to close the tailgate.
Also, the tailgate goes up quite high above what should be the beltline, presumably so that the window can fully lower but still not hit the taillight housings in the lower gate. With the gate down, you have to lean all the farther in to reach anything.
The Ford and Mopar wagons were much more upright at the rear, and more friendly for loading and unloading. This would be particularly true for the Ford with the doorgate.
As for Syke’s comments about brand loyalty, I knew several diehard GM or Mopar families who, when they bought a wagon, bought a Ford. Anecdotal evidence to be sure, but in an era where there was a lot of brand loyalty, these instances stood out to me.

Did the clamshell have a problem with wasted space where the lower portion disappeared into the floor? Seems that would take up a whole swag of space that non-clamshelll wagons would have available for hauling.

The forward facing third seat was a selling feature, not a design solution. The rear side doors were longer to aid entry. That’s also why the B body clamshell roof is humped up: to facilitate the third row.

The skyroof A body wagons also have forward facing third seats, longer rear doors, and a humped roof for the same reason. The glass panels mostly are to decorate the humped roof.

The Trailblazer EXT has a humped roof/longer doors/forward facing third seat, but the hump is disguised with a luggage rack instead of glass.

The road tests of the time definitely took points off for that — especially Consumer Reports, which after all is what many families consulted to choose a family car. They had an adjustable tube frame to show the biggest box that would fit inside the wagon with the tailgate and the window closed. It may sound like a slightly silly test, but think about transporting a couch or other big pieces of furniture and you see the point.

Oh yes, I remember Consumer Reports’ adjustable frame to measure cargo usability for wagons. The Volvo wagon of the late 60s and early 70s scored really well for usable cargo volume because of its boxy cargo shape and nearly upright rear liftgate.

It probably has better cargo usability than the 1973 and later GM A-body Colonnade wagons because of the latter’s raked sloping rear gate.

Also, I thought for sure that when the clue photo captured the reflections from the three taillights that someone would shout “Chevy”. I had never paid attention, but the Caprice got all six of its taillights in red with separate backup lights in the bumper. I wonder if anyone ever noticed what had to be a huge expenditure by Chevrolet for a separate Caprice-only bumper stamping? I certainly never did.

It’s like an Impala RS wagon, ha-ha! Aside from the Camaro/Camaro RS, I believe the botttom-feeder ’68 Chevelles were similar in that their rear bumpers had no backup light cutouts since their backup lights were integrated into the rear taillamps. I’ve never actually seen one of those cars but saw the tail/backup light combo unit for sale at a swap meet a long time ago so they evidently exist.

Imagine the tooling that went into the rear tailgate to accomodate those taillights… all that work & expenditure for a one-year-only station wagon style that never sold in huge numbers. Although the Fords & Mopars were probably more useful, I never had kids or common sense so I’d snap one of these babies up in a second.

I never cared for the gold interior or exterior though although the common pale green & blue colors appeal to me. Those huge round gauges & optional (standard on Caprice) front fender lights are awesome.

The ’67 Chevy pickup (mmmm) & jade GP make for an interesting backdrop.

Chevrolet charged a significant premium for the Caprice, and made hundreds of thousands of B body bumpers. It would have been a nuisance to get the right bumpers, lights, etc into the system for each different model, but the actual extra cost of having some machines make Caprice bumpers and others make Impala bumpers would be tiny.

Something must have been in the water in Detroit in 1968. Not only was there the Chrysler (that should have been called a Town & Country) but there was also a plankside version of the Mercury 2 door or convertible.

As much as I love 68 Chrysler convertibles, I think I prefer my Chrysler (and Mercury) convertibles without too. Although you could certainly start a lot of conversations with these. 🙂

I came across a wood paneled 68 Mercury convertible at a car show 4 or 5 years ago, it was for sale too, it really tempted me, even though the car itself is kinda goofy. Its like something McGarrettt would drive to the regatta.

“With a few exceptions (particularly in the early 1960s), Chevrolet never seemed able to put away Ford wagons as they had done elsewhere in the model lineup. As the 1960s unfolded, this situation would become more and more lopsided….”

I had never really noticed how dominant Ford was when it came to wagons until it came up in another discussion here a while back. Overall, Chevy’s full-size cars outsold Ford’s by a sizable margin in this era, but within those lineups, Ford’s full-size wagons outsold Chevy’s by a sizable margin. There were years in the late ’60s/early ’70s when Ford’s full-size wagon production exceeded 200,000 units, which probably works out to more than a quarter of Ford’s full-size production for some of those years.

“I recall that there always seemed to be a lot more Impalas than Caprices around.”

I’m not sure if a breakdown exists of how many Impala vs. Caprice wagons were built in this era, but the Impala certainly did a much higher sales volume overall. That would remain true through the mid ’70s, when the dual effects of the energy crisis (which apparently prompted a larger portion of the Impala’s more downmarket customer base to switch to buying smaller cars) and GM placing more emphasis on the more profitable, more broughamy Caprice allowed it to pull ahead. I don’t have any numbers in front of me, but the first year the Caprice outsold the Impala was probably somewhere in the 1975-77 range.

I’d say by 1977, the Caprice name pulled ahead. MT named the Caprice its 1977 COTY and no mention of Impala. Previously, the Impala Custom coupe was a huge seller, but was dropped for ’77, so that also hurt sales.

Impala replaced BelAir/Biscayne as the strippo/fleet/old timer special, until it faded away in 1985.

It looks like the Fairlane wagon came out as a 63, so there was only a single year delay. Maybe it was just given a lower priority than the 62 sedans and coupes. I believe that the Fairlane hardtop came out in 1963 as well, so maybe the hardtop and wagon were the second half of a 1-2 punch.

As for the 49-51, the Fords were both 2 door and still had a lot of wood. The 49 Chevy had a little wood, but it was all steel and 4 doors for 1950-51. Another market niche they could have mined but did not.

Correct on the Ford’s wagon success with the simple doorgate. GM admitted the utility of the Ford approach when it came out with the 1977 B-body wagon which scrapped the clamshell and adapted the 3-way doorgate a la Ford.

I think the crowd would have been over where they kept the Camaro. I would have been with you at the wagon. Make mine 327/TH350. Probably would still be running.

Have been brand loyal with the 57 and 77 Chevy wagons. I would also have preferred the chev prior to 55. The ford flathead or one year ohv small v8 were nothing much to brag about. The stovebolt starting in 54 was probably (IMHO) a better engine. 53 and earlier, not so much for either chev or ford.

Found a 91 with wood. Mercury Marquis. Submitted it so it should probably surface soon. I liked it with wood and it looks fun to drive.

Ford wagons had a more ‘durable, tough’ image, to go with their trucks. Chevys were seen as ‘stylish, sporty cars’ back in the 60’s. But also, on shows that had Chevy for sponsor, rarely were wagons featured at all. Usually Dinah Shore with an Impala convertilble or ‘Bewitched’ Samantha in a Chevelle/Camaro.

GM seemed to hand over the wagon market to Ford, until the 70’s when at least tried to compete. But they did finally take sales, with the 77-90 versions.

Also, Impala was dominate Chevy big car until about 1977, when Caprice took lead.

Put a 283 in it with the TH350, and a tall ratio like a 2.75:1 in the diff and this would be a fine highway cruiser, even today and it would be good on gas, especially with some gas mileage minded ‘upgrades’ from the Jegs catalog. My calculations show that a decently sized carb for it would be around 276 cfm (283×4500/3456x.75), so rebuild the 2 bbl, put in a torque cam, add headers, dual exhaust and a Pertronix electronic ignition, rejet the carb with the help of a sniffer and go up one inch on the wheels and you’d be seeing 20 mpg easy. Hot Rod did similar mods in the 70s and would coax 305s to get up around 28mpg.

Ford surely had the best station wagons back in the day, but GM had the absolute coolest cars (Impala, Chevelle, Nova & Corvette, 442, GTO, GS, El Dorado, Riviera & Toronado) along with Chrysler (GTS, Roadrunner, Barracuda, Charger, etal), but the coolest wagon EVER has to be the Oldsmobile Vista Cruiser from the mid-late ’60’s. Those are my favorite wagons of all, basically the only wagons I do like from that era.

I came across this Caprice a few years back and it has haunted my dreams ever since. I was shocked to find out things like this even existed. Not only does it have the most insane engine available in mainstream Chevy’s that year, it’s also got a black interior with buckets, full gauges, A/C, three rows of seating and practically every other option available that year. Even the optional wider tires. $5,460 in 1967 dollars, anyone wanna take a stab at what that translates to in today’s money?

I don’t have ready access to the numbers (maybe MCT is our guy here?) but my point is that where the full size Chevy routinely outsold the full sized Ford (usually by quite a lot) Ford outsold Chevy in wagons. A 20-30k margin was pretty substantial.

On the clamshells, I personally knew more than one family who were diehard GM buyers who bought FoMoCo wagons (either Ford or Mercury) to avoid the clamshell. The other brands certainly sold them too, but I do not believe that any of the GM divisions did as well in wagons as Ford and Mercury did, at least in relation to their market penetration across their entire lines.

I also believe that with the 1977 Chevy redesign (and a real doorgate) Chevy wagon sales took off and they started getting the kind of numbers that they should have been getting all along (ditto the other GM divisions). I would love to see production figures of, say, 1965-80 if anyone has ready access and time on his hands.

I only have the 1976-1999 Standard Catalog, so it won’t tell you much… but in ’76 Ford outsold Chevrolet by about 10k units. From there onwards, GM dominated across the board. For several years in the 80’s, the Oldsmobile Custom Cruiser was actually the 2nd best selling full-size behind the Caprice/Impala wagon.

The 1979 Oil Crisis also apparently played a big part in the downfall of wagons. Chevy dropped from ~125k units in ’79 to ~40k in 1980 and all other makes saw a similar ratio. After that, nobody even came close to 100k/year ever again.

the clamshell definitely scared people off not just because of the potential reliability issue but it’s not exactly the most space efficient design either. i also seem to remember that the two way tailgates had a tendency to lose alignment on the side closing mechanism and you had to be careful when you closed them. and as chicagoland pointed out, i don’t remember these as being exclusive to ford.

The Clams sold well until the Gas Crunch, they were all over 1973 Suburbia. It’s just that Ford outsold Chevy. I’d like to see all sales figures for all GM wagons vs. Ford/Merc to see whole #’s. They weren’t a ‘flop’ by any means.

You jogged my memory and I looked it up. You are right that Chevy got the doorgate for 1969-70. I believe that the Mopar wagons introduced it in 1969 as well. But for three long years from 1966-68 the “Magic Doorgate” was a Ford exclusive.

Notes: From 1965 to 1972, the Standard Catalog does not have exact numbers, but numbers rounded to the nearest hundred. As far as I can tell, the Standard Catalog does not have a separate breakout for wagons for either 1969 or 1973; the ’69 figure was likely similar to ’68 and ’70, and the ’73 figure was likely similar to ’72 (’74 was likely much lower than ’73 due to the energy crisis). Production for the 1971 model year was artifically depressed due to a lengthy UAW strike.

Technical note for both brands: it has never been clear to me precisely what the figures in the Standard Catalog represent. The simple answer is “U.S. model year production”. But does this include cars built in the U.S. for export, or cars built outside the U.S. (e.g., in Canada) for the U.S. market? Whatever the answer, I am assuming that, overall, these figures are a roughly accurate representation of how popular each brand’s full-size wagons were in relation to each other.

Thanks for your research. This pretty much confirms what I expected to see. Chevy had pulled out front in the early 1960s, but 1965 marked a change of direction with the boxy Ford gaining and the swoopy Chevy losing ground. The 1966 Ford doorgate really turned the tide, and Ford would retain its dominance until the 1977 Chevy B body wagon that (finally) followed Ford’s winning formula – a big square box with a doorgate.

Also interesting is how over ten years (66-76) the full sized wagons went from major sellers to also-rans. I would imagine that the mid sized wagons (Malibu and Torino) were taking over. Also, full-sized vans were becoming popular in the 70s and were probably also cannibalizing sales of the big wagons.

MCT

Posted July 24, 2012 at 8:07 AM

“Also interesting is how over ten years (66-76) the full sized wagons went from major sellers to also-rans.”

The bulk of the loss over that ten-year period was prompted by the 1973 energy crisis, though, which hit full on just as the 1974 models were coming out. (I am stunned at how low the production figure for the ’74 full-size Chevy wagons was, to the point where I have to wonder if it may actually be a typo.) In 1973, Ford was actually selling more full-size wagons than they had in 1966. Chevy’s full-size wagon production declined between 1966 and 1973, but not catastrophically. In both cases, most of the losses over the 1966-76 period came after 1973.

That having been said, sales of full-size cars in general experienced a clear downward trend after about 1965, although the decline wasn’t severe enough to truly remove them from a position of dominance until the ’73 energy crisis. Chevy’s wagon production during this period seems to follow this trend pretty closely, aside from the anomaly of ’71. Some Americans were obviously becoming acclimated to the idea of buying a “less than full size” car. And as each size class got larger over time, intermediates ended up being pretty close to where low-priced full-size models had once been. If someone who bought a Bel Air in 1962 returned to a Chevy dealer in 1967 or 1972 looking for the most direct replacement for their current vehicle, they may very well have walked out with a Chevelle. (If they weren’t determined to get a direct replacement, they may have even been looking at Novas instead, or, in ’72, Vegas.) Ford’s success with its full-size wagons in the late ’60s and early ’70s was remarkable because it came during this period of general decline for full-size models.

Ford’s success with its full-size wagons was also remarkable because, as has already been mentioned, its overall full-size sales almost always trailed Chevy throughout this era — often by a sizable margin. Everyone’s full-size sales dropped during the 1958-61 recession, then recovered in 1962-65. Chevy’s bounced back a lot farther than Ford’s, though, and by the mid ’60s Chevy had built up lead of several hundred thousand units a year. (Ford, meanwhile, was getting a leg up on Chevy in other areas, with cars like the Falcon, intermediate Fairlane and Mustang.) In the late ’60s/early ’70s, as both brands saw their full-size sales decline for the reasons discussed in the last paragaraph, Ford closed the gap a bit. But they never really caught up, at least not in any year when GM’s production wasn’t artifically depressed due to strikes.

After taking a big hit in 1974-75, full-size sales recovered a bit in the late ’70s, but would never get back anywhere close to where they had been prior to 1974. The downsized ’77 B-bodies took full advantage of this recovery, establishing a big lead for Chevy once again, and finally breaking Ford’s stranglehold on the full-size wagon market. While their numbers weren’t as high as what was put up before 1974, the 1977-79 B-body wagons were impressive sellers for their era. Ford’s downsized ’79s by contrast — both in general, and the wagons in particular — seem to have been somewhat disappointing sellers. I wouldn’t quite say they were a flop, but they probably didn’t do as well as Ford was hoping for.

Then, as Sean noted, the ’79 energy crisis came along just in time for the 1980 model year, dealing full-size cars yet another blow. Similar to what had happened last time, full-size sales cratered for a few years, then recovered a bit by the mid ’80s, but would never get back to the levels they had been at in the late ’70s (let alone the levels they had been at before 1974).

the country squire may have been more practical for shape and features but the chevy is much better looking for sure…I can’t think of a huge wagon as sporty and well-proportioned as this one, praise to Bill Mitchell and his staff ! A collector here in Italy have one of these, ivory with woodgrain and gold interiors, 396 and cragar mags, very beautiful

What attracted me to Ford wagons was one of Dad’s friends that owned a new 1957 Ranch Wagon. It was red and white inside and out. He hired me to do some small jobs around his place. What was even better was the very good looking 16 year old blue eyed blonde that was the driver of said wagon when errands were needed. I loved that summer job!

I wonder how much of a factor Ford’s station wagon dominance had on Henry Ford II’s decision to nix Sperlich/Iacocca’s minivan idea when they were at Ford in the early seventies. Although he enthusiastically approved design studies (including a running 1972 prototype Carrousel van), it would certainly be feasible for HFII to eventually calculate, “Why the hell would we want to market a vehicle that could potentially cannibalize wagon sales, when we’ve owned that market for decades?”.

Of course, in hindsight, HFII’s decision was certainly a mistake, considering the stunning success Iacocca and Sperlich would have with the minivan when they moved to Chrysler, and how the minivan would ultimately spell the death of the traditional station wagon from all domestic manufacturers (although many of today’s unibody SUVs and, especially, ‘crossovers’ seem suspiciously like station wagons, i.e., Ford Flex).

The Ford full-size wagons of the time were more PRACTICAL. Yeah, neither one of them were really the space-management champs the minivans later came to be; but all that curved glass, sides and back, really cut into the load space.

As well, the Fords of 1967-68 were more attractive cabins. Again, we’re splitting hairs; but I’d taken a trip (with an awkward-shaped load) in a 1968 Chevrolet wagon; and also had done travels in a 1968 Country Squire. The Ford was more plush; the Chevrolet body trying to be more trendy and stylish.

But when you’re lugging a refrigerator on its back, and wanna close the wagon’s rear window…and can’t, because the tumblehome cuts into the space that boxy cabinet is occupying…you know which one is the more practical. The one you didn’t get.

In the 70’s, some families switched to four door or even 2 door big/mid size cars. After 73, road trips declined, hurting Holiday Inn business, for example. So some gave up big rig and got ‘smaller car’ for shorter trips.

But, as someone said above full sized vans came into play. My Cousins’ family went from Plymuoth Fury wagon to Dodge van since they needed more room for teenagers. Also, Chevy Suburban started gaining sales.This was the root of minivans and SUV’s.

Once gas was cheaper in 1984-89, station wagons never came back, and minivans/SUV’s started selling like cold soda.

Unless it is a “My Curbside Classic” piece, we do not own the cars featured. We just find them in random places and photograph them. I found the car in Indianapolis at a towing business on Keystone Avenue. I have no idea if it is still there, I believe I found it last summer.

My comments/observations on the “Ford vs. Chevy” wagon debate: in the 1960’s and 70’s most consumers associated Chevys with the 2 speed Powerglide transmission, even if the 3 speed turbohydramatic was available.

Starting in 1965, Ford wagons had the most useful 90 degree air vents for the roll down rear tailgate window that Chevy never had. More than one child got sick from sucked in exhaust fumes while road tripping before this neat invention!

Although a Ford wagon was hardly nimble, surefooted and tight handling; compared to a Chevy wagon they were much more pleasant and better driving.

From what I can recall, when my parents when “wagon shopping” the (as much as possible) comparable Chevy wagon was always quite a bit more expensive than a Ford station wagon,

And, of course, the afore mentioned two way tailgate that Ford pioneered in 1965.

Only new car my Grandma ever bought was a 67 4dr Impala sedan. Sierra Fawn with the brown cloth/vinyl interior. 283/PG. A few options, AC, tinted glass, power steering and brakes (4 wheel drum), AM radio, whitewalls, and full wheel covers. Had it until 1980 when it was totalled by a dump truck. Since I was 14 in 80, I remember it quite well. When she went to assisted living in 03, except for the window sticker, we found all the paperwork for it. I have all the engine/transmission/ axle codes, know who sold it, etc., etc. And I own it’s replacement, a 74 Sport Coupe she bought from the original owner. I was there when that transaction went down. As far as the above vehicle, even now several years after this article came out, I still say it’s at best a $1200 deal. But anybody who reads my posts know I’m a tightwad/miser.

I can’t imagine why I had no idea the clamshell ever existed. I don’t ever remember seeing one in action. It seems brilliant in the commercial, but it’s one of those deals where you get home after the show and the sour taste gradually comes on. Maybe the designers spent too much time watching doors swoosh open and closed on Star Trek.

The problem with the clamshell wasn’t the idea, but the execution (as with so many other GM innovations). In another CC discussion about it, I think it was mentioned that one of the biggest issues, besides sacrificing rear underfloor space, was that dirt easily got into the mechanism and it wasn’t uncommon for the door to get stuck in the stowed position. I vaguely recall that the non-motorized tailgate was somewhat less susceptible to jamming then the motorized version.

I’d go so far as to suggest with today’s increase in attention to quality, if station wagons were still as popular as they once were, a reliable clamshell tailgate design might be a good seller. In fact, if it weren’t for the popular fold-into-the-floor third row seat, maybe a clamshell, disappearing tailgate could have been used with a modern minivan. Imagine just pressing a button on a minivan remote and the entire hatch automatically lowering into the floor.

Please be advised that in addition to the world’s largest gas gauge, our 1967 full-size car also includes the world’s largest automotive clock on the right side of the cluster – provided of course that you are a sufficient enthusiast of practical items to pony up the money to have a clock in the dial.

Your Mopar driven mockery of our typical gauge package in a high-profile media such as Curbside Classic does not take into account that we at Chevrolet Motor Division know what is best for the automotive consumer. Perhaps I need to bring to your attention Chevrolet sales figures compared to those of your obsession, Plymouth?

From your various contributions to Curbside Classic, I know full well that you understand the dominance of both Chevrolet Motor Division and General Motors Corporation. I’d appreciate it if you would take this into account in your future contributions.

Maybe someone can ask GM what the thought process was behind the rather bizarre, big-ass dial-type gauges on the 1967 full-size Chevrolets. IIRC, from all other year models from 1965 forward, they all used much more appropriately sized pointer-and-scale, strip speedometers, with more reasonably sized pods to the left and right for fuel and clock/tachometer, respectively.

As pointed out, if you didn’t upgrade to at least a clock in 1967, that big, empty, round pod on the right virtually screams, “CHEAPASS!”. Likewise, the large gauge on the left seems to shout, “Is this gas gauge big enough for ya?!”.

The ’67 dash was probably the sportiest full-size Chevy dash in the decade preceding and following it – almost Plymouth worthy! The big, round centered speedometer was quite a departure from the “strip” speedometers that dominated big American cars for so many years. The dash was one of Chevy’s best ever designs to accommodate a full gauge cluster.

Trouble was, GM’s typical indifference to gauges meant that they did not make a full gauge cluster standard on any model, and didn’t promote it. So, the big Chevy’s probably best ever dash went to waste 99% of the time with an oversize gas gauge and turn signals and idiot lights in the gauge binnacles.

These pictures show the typical ’67 dash, and the quite rare fully instrumented dash. With full gauges, including tach, it’s a great design…………..

I can’t deny that those are certainly some readable gauges, but I can’t help but wonder if a more cohesive design would have been to make the three, large binnacles a tad smaller, the four, smaller binnacles a bit bigger, and relocated the smaller gauges to positions between the three center pods, rather than to the right and left of them.

It certainly seems to be true that Chevrolet (and GM as a whole) didn’t care too much about instrument cluster styling. It was definitely one of Chrysler’s fortés. Sadly, it didn’t help them all that much in the sales race.

According to a CR test in 82 the diesel Century was only 1/2 second slower to 60 than the 3.0 gas engine and it got 45 mpg at 55. They also said it lit up in only 6 seconds at zero degrees. They liked it. Here’s a diesel Celebrity I got last month in Denton TX.

Dad bought new the exact car seen in 1967Chevyad061.jpg in summer 1967. I vaguely recall it being described as Mountain Green (with the fake wood). THM, 327, wayback third row, with the speed alert, AC, and black vinyl seats; my father would shake his head as he discovered we’d left teeth marks in them. Fast, reliable, and bulletproof – it foreshadowed the National Lampoon “Vacation” movies as we drove I-95 and its predecessors up and down the East Coast on our vacations. He sold it to a housepainter before I was old enough to drive it, and we saw it on the road occasionally over many years. Ford sold a lot of wagons in 1967, but any one of them would have been hard-pressed to improve on the Caprice we had.

I don’t recall the “estate” moniker, and those taillights appear to have originated on a different car.

A few days ago, on another website, I saw a post for a 1965 or 1966 Chrysler T&C wagon, fully loaded. The original drivetrain was reported as a 426ci Hemi with a 4 speed transmission. Alas they did not come with the wagon. Today I read this post and there is that picture of the 1967 Caprice, that Sean Cornelis posted in 2012. I think something (or someone) is telling me to find a mid 1960s fully loaded wagon with the biggest meanest engine offered and a 4 speed. Manufacturer not important. I bet the number of wagons built to those specs is pretty, pretty, pretty low and the price pretty high if one can be found.